CounterClifton

I find often that the despising of religion or rather, abstract belief, goes hand in hand with ones feeling about people in general.

For instance, yes - religion was a tool with which damage was done to peoples of South America.

So, one one intuit that upon the vacancy of such imposition, that the harmful trappings would also be removed.

Yet, that doesn't happen. And the only ways to interpret this is that people choose to keep that with which they find value... or that they are collectively ignorant, weak-minded fools. There's no other possibility (though one can take a more circuitous route to one of these conclusions.) (and ignorantly ignores that common belief already existed in these places.

J_R_Hartley

Clifton, at which point did the Catholic Church ever leave South America?

The last mass burning of heretics was in 1850 in Mexico.

Atheism in Brazil has risen from 4% to 14% in the last fifteen years.

40% of Uraguayans declare themselves to be without religion, about have of those atheist.

<<or that they are collectively ignorant, weak-minded fools>>

Superstition has always been more prevalent among the poor and uneducated. I wouldn't insult them for their socio-economic conditions.

J_R_Hartley

<<And the only ways to interpret this is that people choose to keep that with which they find value>>

You can find value in a myth: The Tao of Pooh is a great source of wisdom.

CounterClifton

Doesn't South America more or less run the Catholic Church at the moment?

And even if they didn't, the Catholic Church hasn't ever left most of the world. But they haven't had the influence to force people into mass in a very long time. I'd compare it favourably to say, how long the British have been doing various colonial type things. ANd that's not to compare the two activities... but you have challenged people yourself when they've blamed world events on the British. Because it's been quite a while. But you don't have a problem doing the cause and effect thing going further back in time when it suits your purpose. Odd sort of double standard, that.

People in South America, rich and poor, attend mass. It varies by country. These aren't all the same place. It's to be expected. I'm glad to see the changes, personally.

But you're still losing. When you make so much sense. And no one is forcing anyone to declare a belief in anything... why are your views not prevailing?

<i> I wouldn't insult them for their socio-economic conditions.</i>

Yet, you do. You went right for the poor, without regard for that attendance crosses economic classes. It's all part and parcel of the superior intellect, innit? That it must be the poor and uneducated to blame?

CounterClifton

btw, I have to say that I'm not sorry the Catholic Church hasn't pulled out of places like Latin America (I'm not Catholic, I couldn't ever be Catholic). Likewise other sort of church-y groups. Anytime I ever encounter anyone doing something that absorbs their entire life and they're in the trenches making a difference, like sheltering kids, etc... it has always - 100% of the time - been religious people doing it.

Sure, I know there are secular groups like Peace Corp that do things. And I mean secular, because those groups are made up of just as many believers as none.

Which is not to give credit to religion as the only possible motivator to affect change. But where ARE all you guys? Really. You talk your asses off, but you don't actually seem to DO as much as you want to remind is you COULD... and somewhere, in secular groups, someone like you probably DOES... But where the rubber hits the road, the people you'll find. Yep, religious nuts. WHo can't ever do it well enough for the sideline, eye-rolling critics. I've met the nuns in Nicaragua, the monks in Cambodia and so on... But all anyone can focus on is how they feel about what "they" have to deal with... how it makes them feel to see 4 words on a dollar bill or not be able to buy a drink on Sunday. And that's the major effect.

But it's alright to p*ss on whatever it is that drives people to do all they do. Whatever keeps them going.... because for some bizarre reason, your widdle feeling are hurt. People aren't listening. Maybe it's not religion that keeps them from wanting to listen?

annhig

Anytime I ever encounter anyone doing something that absorbs their entire life and they're in the trenches making a difference, like sheltering kids, etc... it has always - 100% of the time - been religious people doing it.>>

really, CC? perhaps you just haven't noticed the non-religious folks doing these things because they aren't making a song and dance about it.

J_R_Hartley

<<Likewise other sort of church-y groups. Anytime I ever encounter anyone doing something that absorbs their entire life and they're in the trenches making a difference, like sheltering kids, etc... it has always - 100% of the time - been religious people doing it..>>

Never heard of the Red Cross? Medecins Sans Frontieres? Oxfam?

CounterClifton

Maybe. I doubt it ann.

Say, when I looked at a list of orphanages in X country and who was running them... it was pretty uniformly people who (though you had to often dig a bit) were religious. I'm saying I've not yet walked through the doors of an atheist run homeless shelter (or being under the banner of non-religious) or orphanage. Surely they must exist....

But no, I don't think that just across town is the atheist version of the same service. I do think though there are secular charities, of course... as in, they really DON'T make an issue of their background (or anyone elses)... but secular means we just don't know or care. It doesn't mean non-religious. I do also know that non-religious people can and do help "religious causes." (that is, causes being dealt with by religious people) I'm married to one.

So far, every orphanage and shelter I've walked into - either as a walk-in volunteer or way back, a "guest" - has been religious. Not why I chose them. That just happens to be who has been running them. Particularly in the 3rd world.

Like I said though, that's just my experience. I know you guys get out into places like Africa and India and such. What did you find when you were helping out as far as who was running things?

CounterClifton

Yes, JR. I contribute to two of those. The other was a client of mine. Oxfam was founded by the Quakers, btw and the Red Cross by a Calvinist.


All of them secular, like society, meaning a mix of both religious and non. No credit to the cause there.

CounterClifton

Ps - as I said. Society itself is secular.

Which means that if you can give credit for anything that operates as secular as if it were done for non-religious reasons...

well... you can take credit for how society operates too. Secular=non-religious? Great. Then you have nothing to complain about, really.

annhig

well, CC, if you're going to claim that secular charities are actually religious because people who have religious beliefs are involved in them, as well as those without such beliefs, that sounds like having your cake and eating it.

PalenQ

really, CC? perhaps you just haven't noticed the non-religious folks doing these things because they aren't making a song and dance about it.>

Yeh like Medecins sans Frintieres, the Peace Corp, Bill Gates Foundation; Bill Clinton's Foundation and maybe even the U.N. agencies involved with stuff like that.

annhig

Yeh like Medecins sans Frintieres, the Peace Corp, Bill Gates Foundation; Bill Clinton's Foundation and maybe even the U.N. agencies involved with stuff like that.>>

ah, yes, PalenQ, but they may have some members who are religious, so by CC's lights, they still count as such.

J_R_Hartley

Not sure what we are disagreeing on here.

Secular does indeed mean non religious.

Are you looking for atheist churches?

Contradiction in terms. Explicitly atheistic organisations?

There are various humanist organisations but not specifically atheistic charities etc that spring to mind

Atheists aren't at all organised around a dogma or doctrine.

I agree Christian charity is admirable (The Dalai Llama says the same thing).

Atheist do give, but there are no great Atheist Collectives

J_R_Hartley

Funnily enough, I was thinking of volunteering for a local charity, whose work I admire, but it appears I have to be a church member, which is disappointing.

I can't think that a charity founded by an atheist would ever exclude believers on principle.

Nikki

"Not sure what we are disagreeing on here."

May I take advantage of this break in the argument to make a suggestion? There are people of good will and high ethical standards who believe in religion. There are people of good will and high ethical standards who are atheists. There are criminals and warmongers who believe in religion. There are criminals and warmongers who are atheists.

In my experience, people of good will and high ethical standards vastly outnumber criminals and warmongers.

I would rather try to convince people to have high ethical standards and do good works than try to convince them to change their religion or lack thereof. People don't change their minds about religion because of arguments like this. Although such arguments do serve the purpose of making everybody more entrenched in their own beliefs.

annhig

I too am happy to subscribe to what you have written Nikki - though I'm struggling to see what CC is trying to prove.

CounterClifton

<i>well, CC, if you're going to claim that secular charities are actually religious because people who have religious beliefs </i>

So that everyone understands - nope. This is a misreading. Secular is neither religious nor atheistic. Therefore neither get claim to secular things. Secular, when it comes to people, means inclusive of everyone by intentionally not addressing the question (ie - secular governments are not by definition atheistic). Not by everyone being non-religious. Secular organizations do good work. Secular organizations are not, a product of atheism. So they are immaterial to the question. Because they can not be put in as the effort of either side which likes to position themselves on opposite sides of the God question, and wisely avoid it all together. (Quite unlike the discussion here)

Of organizations that take a position on that ill-advised question... there are religious charities. And there are ? That's the point. MSF is not an Atheistic organization.

The point I was trying to make is that religious inspiration has brought a lot of people out to dedicate themselves to do good work within groups of likeminded people. The organizational steps took place by being able to leverage the existing religious structure. Other people may have used that same inspiration but joined up with MSF or the Red Cross or whatever. At the same time, any number of civic minded Atheists, agnostics as well as people from completely other religions will have done the same. Making the secular organization as much one "side's" as the other. Though it's really pretty dumb to try to credit it to another side... the point is that Atheism didn't inspire nor enable the organization into existence. Which was my point - I'm glad the religious side of it has so greatly increased the amount of organizations capable of being out there, doing stuff. I'm not sad they didn't just go away instead.

I actually join you in not being a person who employs religious stuff to do what we think is right. Btw, you guys all seemed to have oddly missed that question about what you've seen when you're doing your part as equally motivated non-religious folk. If you had, you might see that much if not most religiously inspired charity (real charity, not prosthelytizing + a sandwich... the former of which is legion) isn't centered around conversion. Which is good, in my book. Because I'm secular. I don't care one way or the other, as long as the work gets done.

CounterClifton

I would though, now that I think of it, like to see more secular organizations of doing actual brick-and-mortar, long term help that provides continuity to struggling communities. MSF, Red Cross, OxFam do a bang up job of sweeping in to alleviate an immediate concern - a refugee situation, a community in need of a well, a natural disaster relief.

Where I've seen the gap is in things like long-term care of kids (this is a focus of ours). Where continuity calls for role models for the long haul and people on the ground who become part of the fabric of those they serve. If you don't want a church doing it, get out there... fill the void before they do.

Neither of us are church goers today, by the way. I was raised by a leftist semi-religious mom and an atheist dad. Both just as moral, IMO. I don't have a lot of use for organized religion and people dictating things I should believe in. My wife is straight up agnostic. I just like seeing people have the freedom to make their own choices and I like people and institutions getting credit for what they do. I kind of hate seeing them being trashed to further self-centered personal journeys played out in public... from either end of the spectrum.

Michael

<i>I would though, now that I think of it, like to see more secular organizations of doing actual brick-and-mortar, long term help that provides continuity to struggling communities.</i>

That could be counter-productive for the struggling communities as a whole. After all, the charitable works in 19th cent. England did not solve the problem of the poor, it took a different type of organization to enlarge the coverage, so to speak. All too often there are political strains that feel that private charity is good enough, they do not want larger organizations (unions and government) to interfere in what they perceive to be a market issue.

And perhaps more to the point, there have been questions about the effectiveness of do-good organizations in Africa (leaving aside the emergency help like Médecins sans frontières, etc.)